I’m just throwing the question in the title out there for consideration. I recently heard a talk by a Unitarian Universalist Minister about the soul asking does it exist, if so what is it and tons of other questions. The minister even brought in idea and concepts of physics, especially quantum mechanics. The audience was active and interested so the Q&A went on for some time. Of course no absolutes about the concept of a soul were reached but we all enjoyed.

At the end, the speaker said since physics tries to answer basically everything will we one day think of physicists as the theologians of tomorrow. I thought how insightful as the thought had never entered my mind but then again I never claimed to be the sharpest tool in the shed.

If you regard theologians as those who provide the foundation of reason (however unreasonable) for our existence and for the explanation of all that we experience. Unfortunately, there may never come a point where physicists (and perhaps other disciplines) will fully explain everything and that leaves open an inviting home for a “God of the gaps”. Bummer.

On the other hand, there is a widely held view that many individuals require something often manifested as religion. Perhaps it is just a belief system that provides the illusion of a firm foundation for their existence. Who knows how many will convert to the religion of physics?

Perhaps a little off-topic, but what is a soul? A piece of us that actively participates in a world that our bodies no longer participate in, perhaps? Does Newton still participate in the present? Would Newton have been possible without his ancestors or the people who fed and clothed him? To me, the “spirits” of Newton and all who sustained him are very much alive today and it doesn’t need the likes of quantum theories to explain it. The problems arise when we demand that our soul exist to feel gratification for our contributions to the world.

If they do, it will be a very different use of the word. “Theology” and “Religion” are defined as disciplines that include discussion of morality and human existence and unanswerable questions, but they are not defined as a way to actually arrive at any conclusion or to defend a position as true or not. To me, “theology” is circular. It explains Christ in terms of God, always referencing earlier scripture, nothing demonstrable.

Physicists on the other hand tells us where the limits of our knowledge are and what we are doing to expand that. It would be great if that was something we all knew and agreed on. When I’m discussing life’s big questions, and someone says, “well, we don’t really know.” I usually change the subject. To me, it says the person has become uncomfortable because we are bumping into their beliefs, the things they know they don’t have evidence for. I look forward to the day when everyone in the room would say, “well sure, but let’s talk about it anyway”.

“Unitarian Universalist Minister” Another useless title to be added to that of “theologian”. Theologians are useless bums who claim they are relevant when they are not. I mean what is their function? how do they contribute to society and its improvement? when they were in charge, they told us that earth was flat, woman were animals and not humans and anything in between. The world as we knew it was submerged in pitch black darkness.
My guess is the minister brought up science to make you think his opinion matters and well founded. The soul does exist and to neither’s credit. This is the bottom line.
A quick google inquiry gave me the following description of a physicist’s job:

Physicists are highly trained scientists who study matter and the universe. They measure and study phenomena from the subatomic to the cosmic level and then use or develop models and theories to explain their observances.

that idiot who asked this question is stupid, corrupt or both. According to him, physics as A Science might EVEN be elevated to the level of “Theooologyyyy”. And in my tiny Opinion, that’s FRAUDULENT at best.